Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 396 posts

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#131

Post by lovegrenoble »

snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…

Can We Please Stop Comparing Russia’s Economy to Italy’s?

Who's comparing Russia's economy to Italy's? Apparently Lindsay Graham did in 2014. CNN in 2022.

I like this article because it made me think about Russia and it's economy in a way that I didn't fully appreciate before. The article calls out an argument that compares Russia's economy to Italy's economy, using nominal GDP as a measurement. This is supposed to be a Western attempt to brush off Russia as a small(er) player than it really is, but that is a skewed perspective. The use of nominal GDP, especially in times of conflict (and war), does not fully encompass all of the resources that a country is capable of summoning and utilizing. Russia's oil and gas resources, as well as production in wheat, corn, and other earth metals provides it with "substantial leverage" on international markets. Furthermore, when the measurement used to compare the GDP is purchasing power parity (PPP), Russia's economy is more like that of Germany, than Italy. Taken together, the PPP and Russia's domestic production capability, and it seems to make sense why Russia's economy has not completely faltered in the face of sanctions imposed by the West. Could we say the same for Italy? Or even Germany?So all though, CNN is not wrong to make the claim that Russia's economy is equivalent to Italy's in nominal GDP, that comparison fails to take into account the economics of reality. And that's the very definition of propaganda.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#132

Post by GaggiX »

rcxdude wrote: post #63
GaggiX wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Italy has highly skilled nuclear engineers. >And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia. Nonsense.

What are those engineers doing currently, then? It takes time to actually build a technology base for somethin like nuclear, and it generally requires that you are building and running nuclear power plants. And even after years of the war in Ukraine, Russia is still the second largest source of uranium for the EU, making up a quarter of imports

>What are those engineers doing currently, then?

Italian companies that work on reactor design, decommissioning and technology commissioned by foreign countries, for example.

>Russia is still the second largest source of uranium for the EU, making up a quarter of imports

The vast majority of contracts are multiannual, the EU will rely much less on Russian uranium export once they expire. Italy has no reason to sign them with Russia.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#133

Post by philipov »

willvarfar wrote: post #39
surgical_fire wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable. By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.

> Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?

Different types of reactors have less risk of meltdown. Look up Molten-Salt Reactors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUnik4gxrtM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor

> MSRs eliminate the nuclear meltdown scenario present in water-cooled reactors because the fuel mixture is kept in a molten state. The fuel mixture is designed to drain without pumping from the core to a containment vessel in emergency scenarios, where the fuel solidifies, quenching the reaction.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#134

Post by kome »

sph wrote: post #123
kome wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The import of electricity is around 10-15%, a significant amount, but Italy does not MOSTLY rely on imports.

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produzione_di_energia_elettr... This says that up to 25% of electricity is imported during peak times, and as of 2016, Italy was the third-largest net importer of electricity after US and Brazil.

Quite the contrary: it literally says that imports are not always proportional to demand. During the day, imports are around 10%, while at night, they rise to 25%... probably because it's much cheaper and more convenient.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#135

Post by lovegrenoble »

mpweiher wrote: post #127
ttoinou wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats

Actually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

While CNN's assertion that Russia's economy is on par with Italy's in nominal GDP may be technically accurate, it does not fully consider the economic nuances that are crucial to a comprehensive analysis. This is an example of propaganda.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#136

Post by FrancisMoodie »

ttoinou wrote: post #120
snowwrestler wrote: post #99

Maybe not well known, but during the 20th century a number of nations started a nuclear weapons program, but then were convinced to halt the work by security guarantees by the U.S. You better believe that every single one of those nations is now revisiting that decision. For those wondering if Italy can afford to build nuclear: their economy is larger than Russia’s. As is Brazil’s, another nation that put nuclear wea…

No their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats

Huh, so you're claiming that GDP data and such is not correct? Any source on that? Because I see multiple sources reporting that in 2023 the GDP of Russia was $2,009,959M and that of Italy was $2,300,941M, although Italy has a higher debt %. Which would confirm the original posters claim considering Italy is a much, much smaller country than Russia. What I find a common trope is people claiming facts are incorrect without stating proof.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#137

Post by stanac »

klooney wrote: post #50
willvarfar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?

You can't. The problem with nuclear is that it needs to be properly maintained forever. If you get an irresponsible government or power company that cheaps out in 30 years, oopsies, you're going to irradiate the local area. It's a lot like trusting your private data to a company. Sure, Google in 2007 is pretty great, but maybe you have some doubts about their integrity in 2025. Too late, they have what they have, for…

There should be international agreements for nuclear energy where neighboring countries can come and inspect each others power plants, or one org on the continent level.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#138

Post by klooney »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #93
klooney wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't. The problem with nuclear is that it needs to be properly maintained forever. If you get an irresponsible government or power company that cheaps out in 30 years, oopsies, you're going to irradiate the local area. It's a lot like trusting your private data to a company. Sure, Google in 2007 is pretty great, but maybe you have some doubts about their integrity in 2025. Too late, they have what they have, for…

You can build systems to fail safe, so that lack of proper maintenance leads to the plant becoming safely inoperable, and only grossly-improper maintenance would cause a fallout incident. Is this guaranteed to work? The Chernobyl disaster was caused by grossly-improper maintenance, so… :shrug:. No matter how many physical safety mechanisms you have, a determined mechanic could remove them – but at that point, it beco…

> grossly-improper maintenance would cause a fallout incident.

At scale, in the long run, you will get grossly improper maintenance. I feel comfortable asserting that without feeling like a total cynic.

It's not just nuclear either, this is also a problem with dams.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#139

Post by intrasight »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #73
mik1998 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries simply raise the price of power up by 10x if not more. Not a viable solution.

Are batteries cheaper in 5-10 years? How about large nuclear plants, what are the probabilities of cost overruns and who is insuring that?

These nuclear cost arguments always gloss over the fact that nuclear has no insurance or cleanup costs. Developers will only build plants if the government assumes both of those costs.

Add to that the uncertainty over fuel and the disposal of used fuel, and there's literally no valid cost argument for nuclear.

I'm not anti-nuclear, but the fiscal realities seem insurmountable.

Re: Italy moves to reverse anti-nuclear stance

#140

Post by [deleted] »

mpweiher wrote: post #127
ttoinou wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No their economy is not larger than Russia, this is a common trope among people whose only way to reach reality is to irrationally use statistics computed by bureaucrats

Actually: it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN